The logical fallacy of atheism

[Sonofason]

Interesting that you refuse to take your own advise...

Don't you actually have anything relevant to say? Is it always an attack with you? You never show evidence of anything you say. Prove that I don't take my own advice. Please for the sake of intelligent conversation, try to be clear. And stop acting like a little kid sulking as if your feelings just got hurt. Grow up and talk like a man. Please humor me as I have a short attention span. What advice of my own don't I take?

 

[McBell]

What advice of my own don't I take?

"Let us leave that which has come from the gutter to remain in the gutter."

 

[Sonofason]

"Let us leave that which has come from the gutter to remain in the gutter."

Sorry, it doesn't apply. Try again.

 

[Sapiens]

Sorry, it doesn't apply. Try again.

Nah, nah, does too. Come on, grow up, that's not an adult response.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yet, according to my Savior, I shall be justified.

You didn't answer my question.

Are Wiccan magick, scientology, reincarnation, nirvana, Hindu Gods, Allah and astral projection all true?

I never made the claim that you haven't experienced the magical leprechaun that you say you experience. But I do question your honesty. And you know why.

Again, I asked you a question: do leprechauns exist?

The point I'm trying to make is that personal experience is insufficient for determining truth, because people have all kinds of profound personal experiences about a variety of supernatural things that conflict with your own beliefs (see above). We have just as much reason, all in all, to believe in leprechauns based on my claimed experiences with them as we have to believe your claims about God. Numbers don't count for anything when the claim cannot be demonstrated, and a claim is worthless if it is just as justified as claims that contradict it.

 

[McBell]

Sorry, it doesn't apply. Try again.

Thank you for the confirmation.

 

[Sonofason]

You didn't answer my question.

Are Wiccan magick, scientology, reincarnation, nirvana, Hindu Gods, Allah and astral projection all true?


Again, I asked you a question: do leprechauns exist?

The point I'm trying to make is that personal experience is insufficient for determining truth, because people have all kinds of profound personal experiences about a variety of supernatural things that conflict with your own beliefs (see above). We have just as much reason, all in all, to believe in leprechauns based on my claimed experiences with them as we have to believe your claims about God. Numbers don't count for anything when the claim cannot be demonstrated, and a claim is worthless if it is just as justified as claims that contradict it.

I have no idea whether or not leprechauns exist, whether they once existed, or if they ever shall exist. I can say that I have read some of the folklore surrounding the existence of leprechauns and I am not completely convinced that an existence of leprechauns is impossible. Neither have I been convinced that the existence of leprechauns is likely. I can tell you, however, with a great deal of certainty that, to my knowledge, I have never personally experienced a leprechaun.

The problem is, with regard to your professed claim of experiencing a leprechaun is that you are lying about it. You never have experienced a leprechaun, and therefore is nothing more than an unjustified and unjustifiable claim. You cannot honestly say the same for my claim of experiencing God.

In fact you are quite intrigued by my claim. You wish you could have the proof I have of God, but you can't, because you refuse to apply reason and accept that the Bible is a canon of historical documentation concerning the existence of God.

If I should discover, even by the word of mouth that leprechauns exist and if I should be convinced that the existence of leprechauns and my belief in them should have significant implications to my life, my security, and my eternal existence, then I might consider investigating them further. But as of this point, I see no reason to invest my time in getting to know leprechauns.

 

[McBell]

The problem is, with regard to your professed claim of experiencing a leprechaun is that you are lying about it.

Just like you with your god..?

You never have experienced a leprechaun, and therefore is nothing more than an unjustified and unjustifiable claim.

Just like with your god..?

You cannot honestly say the same for my claim of experiencing God.

Says you.
But then, you are bias when it concerns your god.

In fact you are quite intrigued by my claim.

Not by the claim, but the way you want your particular claim to have a free pass.

You wish you could have the proof I have of God, but you can't, because you refuse to apply reason and accept that the Bible is a canon of historical documentation concerning the existence of God.

Yet you do not have anything othe than your ability to ratify your beliefs, which is not "proof" of any sort.

If I should discover, even by the word of mouth that leprechauns exist and if I should be convinced that the existence of leprechauns and my belief in them should have significant implications to my life, my security, and my eternal existence, then I might consider investigating them further. But as of this point, I see no reason to invest my time in getting to know leprechauns.

Exactly how myself and many others feel about your god...

 

[Sapiens]

I have no idea whether or not leprechauns exist, whether they once existed, or if they ever shall exist. I can say that I have read some of the folklore surrounding the existence of leprechauns and I am not completely convinced that an existence of leprechauns is impossible. Neither have I been convinced that the existence of leprechauns is likely. I can tell you, however, with a great deal of certainty that, to my knowledge, I have never personally experienced a leprechaun.

The problem is, with regard to your professed claim of experiencing a leprechaun is that you are lying about it. You never have experienced a leprechaun, and therefore is nothing more than an unjustified and unjustifiable claim. You cannot honestly say the same for my claim of experiencing God.

That's an argument from ignorance, you have no idea what he has or has not experienced ... his claim has the same weight as yours since it has the same evidence, e.g., absolutely none.

In fact you are quite intrigued by my claim. You wish you could have the proof I have of God, but you can't, because you refuse to apply reason and accept that the Bible is a canon of historical documentation concerning the existence of God.

No, but I am intrigued by the question of what sort of needy psychosis could drive you to your current state of affairs.

If I should discover, even by the word of mouth that leprechauns exist and if I should be convinced that the existence of leprechauns and my belief in them should have significant implications to my life, my security, and my eternal existence, then I might consider investigating them further. But as of this point, I see no reason to invest my time in getting to know leprechauns.

If I should discover that your God exists and if I should be convinced that the existence of your God and my belief in Him should have significant implications to my life, my security, and my eternal existence, then I might consider investigating them further. But as of this point, I see no reason to invest my time in getting to know your delusion.

 

[Willamena]

Not by the claim, but the way you want your particular claim to have a free pass.

I once picked a wildflower. That is also a claim you can't verify. Should it get a free pass?

 

[Sonofason]

Just like you with your god..?



Just like with your god..?


Says you.
But then, you are bias when it concerns your god.


Not by the claim, but the way you want your particular claim to have a free pass.


Yet you do not have anything othe than your ability to ratify your beliefs, which is not "proof" of any sort.


Exactly how myself and many others feel about your god...

I am actually quite certain that his claim of experiencing a leprechaun is a lie.
You on the other hand are not certain that my claim of experiencing God is a lie. He knows he is not telling the truth. I know that I am telling the truth.

I know you won't see the difference. How could you? If you did, it would mean defeat.

 

[Sapiens]

His leprechaun claim is likely not "true" but just made to make a point.

You god claim is likely "true" (you believe it).

I find your god claim much more disturbing because if you can convince yourself of something that is so unlikely, that has such a low probability of reality, then you are illogical, irrational, unpredictable and possibly dangerous to yourself and others.

 

[Sonofason]

His leprechaun claim is likely not "true" but just made to make a point.

You god claim is likely "true" (you believe it).

I find your god claim much more disturbing because if you can convince yourself of something that is so unlikely, that has such a low probability of reality, then you are illogical, irrational, unpredictable and possibly dangerous to yourself and others.

You are making an assertion that you are incapable of supporting. Please show your evidence and make your case that the existence of God and my knowledge of His existence is unlikely. Please show your evidence and make your case that the existence of God and my knowledge of His existence has a low probability of reality. Because, if you can't, your conclusion that I am illogical, irrational, unpredictable and possibly dangerous to myself and others could be based on an entirely false premise. If you cannot show that this first premise is true, there is no reason for anyone to believe that your conclusion is true.

false premise - A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

Furthermore, you have not shown by means of any evidence whatsoever that something that has a low probability of being true is indeed not true. While that which has a low probability of being true is more likely to be untrue, it is not necessarily the case that it is indeed not true.

It seems to me that both of the premises that you have put forth in your argument could inevitably be false. So then, what credibility can we then say that you have in your argument?

Let me answer that for you. Your argument has no credibility whatsoever.

 

[outhouse]

As it stands right now, no god has ever existed and they are all mans creations.


Don't like it?


Provide evidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

His leprechaun claim is likely not "true" but just made to make a point.

I wonder if there's a better analogy to use?

Perhaps the question if life, intelligent or otherwise, exists on other planets is better? I believe there is. I can't prove it. Those who don't believe it can't prove that position either. *shrugs*

 

[McBell]

You are making an assertion that you are incapable of supporting.

How is your god claim any different?

Please show your evidence and make your case that the existence of God and my knowledge of His existence is unlikely.

Please show your evidence and make your case that god exists.

Please show your evidence and make your case that the existence of God and my knowledge of His existence has a low probability of reality.

Please show your evidence and make your case that the existence of your god is even a probability, low or otherwise.

Because, if you can't, your conclusion that I am illogical, irrational, unpredictable and possibly dangerous to myself and others could be based on an entirely false premise. If you cannot show that this first premise is true, there is no reason for anyone to believe that your conclusion is true.

Yet you want a free pass for your god...

false premise - A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error.
False premise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Furthermore, you have not shown by means of any evidence whatsoever that something that has a low probability of being true is indeed not true. While that which has a low probability of being true is more likely to be untrue, it is not necessarily the case that it is indeed not true.

It seems to me that both of the premises that you have put forth in your argument could inevitably be false. So then, what credibility can we then say that you have in your argument?

Let me answer that for you. Your argument has no credibility whatsoever.

Again, why do you feel your god claim does not have to undergo this same scrutiny?

Let me answer that for you,Your "argument" has no credibility whatsoever.

 

[Willamena]

I find your god claim much more disturbing because if you can convince yourself of something that is so unlikely, that has such a low probability of reality, then you are illogical, irrational, unpredictable and possibly dangerous to yourself and others.

The same is true of my wild flower claim.

 

[McBell]

The same is true of my wild flower claim.

:biglaugh:

 

[Sapiens]

You are making an assertion that you are incapable of supporting. Please show your evidence and make your case that the existence of God and my knowledge of His existence is unlikely. Please show your evidence and make your case that the existence of God and my knowledge of His existence has a low probability of reality. Because, if you can't, your conclusion that I am illogical, irrational, unpredictable and possibly dangerous to myself and others could be based on an entirely false premise. If you cannot show that this first premise is true, there is no reason for anyone to believe that your conclusion is true.

Hey ... your symptoms fit the disease, the DRGs would have your insurance pay for your hospitalization, but most of all: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and you don't even have ordinary proof. I know that you believe that you are in communication with a higher being who runs the universe and that that belief keeps you from seeing anything for what it really is.

What people want most out of the universe is predictability and surety (even us adventurers and explorers) and one of the ways that the cognitive dissonance created by the contradiction of that desire and the often random occurrences that we are subjected to shows itself is in the sort of delusion that you are suffering from (and your strong reaction at being confronted, a healthy person would laugh it off and walk on by.) Yes, you are clearly illogical, positively irrational, perhaps unpredictable and possibly dangerous to yourself and others. My concerns over danger could be wrong, you might be just a harmless crank, but better safe than sorry.

 

[Sonofason]

As it stands right now, no god has ever existed and they are all mans creations.


Don't like it?


Provide evidence.

You are free to believe anything you like. Sadly for you, nothing you say is capable of detracting from my knowledge of God. So then, whether or not I like what you are saying has no bearing on my faith whatsoever. It is you who lacks knowledge of God. It is you who are in desperate need of the evidence that God is most willing to share with you, if you would only acknowledge Him. That ball is in your court.

Why cut off your nose to spite your face?